The only real reason anyone carries concealed.

[Blueshell]

You hear what you want to hear, read what you want to read.

That's funny coming from a guy who gets pissed over spelling errors lol

I did not say or argue that retaliation was legal. What I said was I have never seen or heard of anyone being charged with a crime of any kind just because he or she drew a gun from concealment.

Yes and I illustrated how what you have or have not personally seen is irrelevant.

Lack of prosecution makes nothing legal. There are many reasons a crime will go un-prosecuted, but they are still crimes. Your example of people lying when filling out the 4473 in Colorado after smoking Marijuana is a good one. 1. The 4473 never leaves the Dealer, ATF reviews them whenever they inspect. If a buyer check that "NO" he has not smoked when in fact he has, how would the ATF agent know that he had lied? 2. If he doesn't know, how does he refer this for prosecution? 3. ATF would have to run a Criminal History on each 4473. That's just not practical? This still does not make lying on the 4473 legal, but it shows there is a problem.

You prove my point. Just because you've never seen something prosecuted does not mean it's legal. Therefore what you have or have not seen prosecuted is irrelevant to the thing being legal or illegal.

Personal credentials mean little on forums where your real identity can't be verified, unlike forums such as RallyPoint which verify your real ID before letting you join.

 

[BluesStringer]

I also don't think it's a Constitutional issue as I don't recall the word Civilian being used in it. Also Police Departments as such did not exist when it was written.

Good grief. The words "shall not be infringed" did not exist in The Constitution when it was written/ratified either. Is that the reason cops violate those words every time they cite or arrest someone for not complying with unconstitutional taxation and records-keeping permission slip laws? Pffft. If "police departments" are not authorized and/or regulatable under The Constitution, then your tin badges and uniforms serve as nothing more than costumes that convey no authority whatsoever.

Really one of the dumbest arguments ever put forth on this site.

Distinctions between the legal status of various groups of citizens (civilians, cops, military etc.) have needed clarification and definition through hundreds, probably thousands, of court cases over the last couple of centuries. Webster's or Oxford are irrelevant to the legal question of who's a civilian and who ain't. That would be true even if they got it right with the word "civilian," which clearly, they didn't. Dictionaries should define words, not lend to or detract from the credence of evolving uses of a given word. In this case, Webster's and Oxford have acquiesced their credibility to favor cops' illegitimate re-definition of the word "civilian" to be descriptive of someone hailing from a group separate and apart from their own. So great, now we know that cops between and amongst themselves, Webster's and Oxford have combined to foment the us-and-them atmosphere that is so prevalent today. It kind of makes the assertion of being a "public servant" a ridiculous thought though.

The only thing that gives cops any authority whatsoever over the rest of the civilian population is The Constitution. That document forms a government of, by and for The People, therefore, cops are supposed to be of, by and for The People too. Separating yourselves by referring to the rest of the population as "civilians" is admittedly a minor step in fomenting an us-and-them mentality, but it is a step nonetheless, which, added to the multitude of major steps towards that mentality (militarization, unlawful demands/orders, civil rights violations etc.) serves to draw the lines between us and them more starkly and to the detriment of the country.

Here's a video of a guy doing nothing illegal who tried to be friendly and cooperative with cops right up to the point of them demanding his ID for no legal reason under threat of arrest if he didn't comply with their unlawful demands. As it was, they let him go after 45 minutes of harassing him, but at least he wasn't arrested, beaten or killed for treating them like the servants they're supposed to be, while they tried to treat him as a subject at best and their slave at worst. Oh, and this is on-topic too because the guy was open carrying in NC where it's perfectly legal and no permission slip is required to do so.

 

[jmohme]

See I knew you weren't 'don with [my] nonsense '

No, I am finished with your CC vs OC nonsense.
I'm just commenting on the spelling posts.

And don't call me Don. :sarcastic:

 

[mikestone967]

Good grief. The words "shall not be infringed" did not exist in The Constitution when it was written/ratified either. Is that the reason cops violate those words every time they cite or arrest someone for not complying with unconstitutional taxation and records-keeping permission slip laws? Pffft. If "police departments" are not authorized and/or regulatable under The Constitution, then your tin badges and uniforms serve as nothing more than costumes that convey no authority whatsoever.

Really one of the dumbest arguments ever put forth on this site.

Distinctions between the legal status of various groups of citizens (civilians, cops, military etc.) have needed clarification and definition through hundreds, probably thousands, of court cases over the last couple of centuries. Webster's or Oxford are irrelevant to the legal question of who's a civilian and who ain't. That would be true even if they got it right with the word "civilian," which clearly, they didn't. Dictionaries should define words, not lend to or detract from the credence of evolving uses of a given word. In this case, Webster's and Oxford have acquiesced their credibility to favor cops' illegitimate re-definition of the word "civilian" to be descriptive of someone hailing from a group separate and apart from their own. So great, now we know that cops between and amongst themselves, Webster's and Oxford have combined to foment the us-and-them atmosphere that is so prevalent today. It kind of makes the assertion of being a "public servant" a ridiculous thought though.

The only thing that gives cops any authority whatsoever over the rest of the civilian population is The Constitution. That document forms a government of, by and for The People, therefore, cops are supposed to be of, by and for The People too. Separating yourselves by referring to the rest of the population as "civilians" is admittedly a minor step in fomenting an us-and-them mentality, but it is a step nonetheless, which, added to the multitude of major steps towards that mentality (militarization, unlawful demands/orders, civil rights violations etc.) serves to draw the lines between us and them more starkly and to the detriment of the country.

Here's a video of a guy doing nothing illegal who tried to be friendly and cooperative with cops right up to the point of them demanding his ID for no legal reason under threat of arrest if he didn't comply with their unlawful demands. As it was, they let him go after 45 minutes of harassing him, but at least he wasn't arrested, beaten or killed for treating them like the servants they're supposed to be, while they tried to treat him as a subject at best and their slave at worst. Oh, and this is on-topic too because the guy was open carrying in NC where it's perfectly legal and no permission slip is required to do so.

Link Removed



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Blueshell]

No, I am finished with your CC vs OC nonsense.
I'm just commenting on the spelling posts.

And don't call me Don. :sarcastic:

I see you even enjoy my nonsense, Don.

 

[jmohme]

I see you even enjoy my nonsense, Don.

Nobody ever said we can't disagree and still have fun!

 

[nmpops]

Good grief. The words "shall not be infringed" did not exist in The Constitution when it was written/ratified either. Is that the reason cops violate those words every time they cite or arrest someone for not complying with unconstitutional taxation and records-keeping permission slip laws? Pffft. If "police departments" are not authorized and/or regulatable under The Constitution, then your tin badges and uniforms serve as nothing more than costumes that convey no authority whatsoever.

Really one of the dumbest arguments ever put forth on this site.

Distinctions between the legal status of various groups of citizens (civilians, cops, military etc.) have needed clarification and definition through hundreds, probably thousands, of court cases over the last couple of centuries. Webster's or Oxford are irrelevant to the legal question of who's a civilian and who ain't. That would be true even if they got it right with the word "civilian," which clearly, they didn't. Dictionaries should define words, not lend to or detract from the credence of evolving uses of a given word. In this case, Webster's and Oxford have acquiesced their credibility to favor cops' illegitimate re-definition of the word "civilian" to be descriptive of someone hailing from a group separate and apart from their own. So great, now we know that cops between and amongst themselves, Webster's and Oxford have combined to foment the us-and-them atmosphere that is so prevalent today. It kind of makes the assertion of being a "public servant" a ridiculous thought though.

The only thing that gives cops any authority whatsoever over the rest of the civilian population is The Constitution. That document forms a government of, by and for The People, therefore, cops are supposed to be of, by and for The People too. Separating yourselves by referring to the rest of the population as "civilians" is admittedly a minor step in fomenting an us-and-them mentality, but it is a step nonetheless, which, added to the multitude of major steps towards that mentality (militarization, unlawful demands/orders, civil rights violations etc.) serves to draw the lines between us and them more starkly and to the detriment of the country.

Here's a video of a guy doing nothing illegal who tried to be friendly and cooperative with cops right up to the point of them demanding his ID for no legal reason under threat of arrest if he didn't comply with their unlawful demands. As it was, they let him go after 45 minutes of harassing him, but at least he wasn't arrested, beaten or killed for treating them like the servants they're supposed to be, while they tried to treat him as a subject at best and their slave at worst. Oh, and this is on-topic too because the guy was open carrying in NC where it's perfectly legal and no permission slip is required to do so.

You are misinterpreting what I said. I merely said that Civilian and Police are are not mentioned in the constitution. Don't put words in my mouth. As for the video you attached, yeah the cop was wrong. Part of the reason for the us vs them attitude is the attitude expressed towards cops in this thread. I don't like things I see cops doing either. But for every bad one one there are 100 good ones. As for Blueshell I am done responding to his drivel.

 

[BluesStringer]

Part of the reason for the us vs them attitude is the attitude expressed towards cops in this thread.

So a side-argument about whether or not cops are civilians equals some kind of pervasive anti-cop attitude expressed in this thread? The only posts that could conceivably be construed as "anti-cop" that I've seen are the two of mine that I addressed to you in direct reply to things you said. The only other discussion specifically about cops is the civilian vs. other-than-civilian tangent that you have actually argued both sides of, so unless you're confining the above remark only to my two posts in reply to two of your posts, you've been "anti-cop" in at least one post in this thread too.

Blueshell isn't anti-cop, he's anti-logic, anti-intellectual-honesty, and anti-truth. I am fully pro-logic, pro-intellectual-honesty and pro-truth, and as such, after application of those positive powers of discernment, I am unmovable in my conclusion that government is corrupt beyond any semblance of repair from top to bottom, and that includes the enforcers of the myriad unconstitutional diktats of government that we lowly "civilians" have to live under in direct contravention of the oaths that every single government official and sworn enforcer takes before assuming their duties. So don't feel singled out just because you were a cop and I'm critical of cops. If one of my Congress-critters came on here talking about how protective and defensive they are of our rights, I'd post up irrefutable contradictions to such an absurd assertion. If the local Post Office or other federal agency-employee were on here touting their status as members of one of the "good" arms of government, I'd post a video from just the other day of a friend of mine videotaping a Post Office from the public sidewalk and first being threatened by the manager, then having (one of) his camera knocked out his hand and smashed on the concrete, then when the cops that he called to report the assault came, being threatened with arrest, detained for 20 minutes, handcuffed and placed in the back seat of one of the units, until the supervisor showed up and set everybody straight that the videographer wasn't breaking any laws, let loose, uncuffed, and then ignored by the same supervisor when he wanted the P.O. manager charged with the assault that he had on videotape and was showing to him on-the-spot, and told to go to the station where all the other law-breaking thugs were going to fill out their incident reports to swear out a complaint against the manager who was still standing just feet away when all this was going on! For every so-called "good one" out of the 100/1 ratio you mentioned, the ratio is completely reversed when one takes into consideration that the "good ones" almost never stop or report the bad ones even though they're witnesses to the many crimes and violations of civil rights that they commit daily. Government is force, and that's all. With civil asset forfeiture being as rampant as it is, many, if not most, cop-shops are little more than hangouts for road-pirates, more akin to an outlaw biker clubhouse than a bastion of protectors and defenders of liberty and freedom.

100/1 ratio of good/bad cops, postal workers, federal building office workers or the local county-run dog pound is a freakin' myth. You people use "law" to punish people and extort whatever wealth you can extract from "civilians" under threat of force for "crimes" that this country's Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves over.

In short, I believe your claimed 100/1 ratio of good-to-bad cops is complete and total bunk.

Blues

 

[Blueshell]

So a side-argument about whether or not cops are civilians equals some kind of pervasive anti-cop attitude expressed in this thread? The only posts that could conceivably be construed as "anti-cop" that I've seen are the two of mine that I addressed to you in direct reply to things you said. The only other discussion specifically about cops is the civilian vs. other-than-civilian tangent that you have actually argued both sides of, so unless you're confining the above remark only to my two posts in reply to two of your posts, you've been "anti-cop" in at least one post in this thread too.

Blueshell isn't anti-cop, he's anti-logic, anti-intellectual-honesty, and anti-truth. I am fully pro-logic, pro-intellectual-honesty and pro-truth, and as such, after application of those positive powers of discernment, I am unmovable in my conclusion that government is corrupt beyond any semblance of repair from top to bottom, and that includes the enforcers of the myriad unconstitutional diktats of government that we lowly "civilians" have to live under in direct contravention of the oaths that every single government official and sworn enforcer takes before assuming their duties. So don't feel singled out just because you were a cop and I'm critical of cops. If one of my Congress-critters came on here talking about how protective and defensive they are of our rights, I'd post up irrefutable contradictions to such an absurd assertion. If the local Post Office or other federal agency-employee were on here touting their status as members of one of the "good" arms of government, I'd post a video from just the other day of a friend of mine videotaping a Post Office from the public sidewalk and first being threatened by the manager, then having (one of) his camera knocked out his hand and smashed on the concrete, then when the cops that he called to report the assault came, being threatened with arrest, detained for 20 minutes, handcuffed and placed in the back seat of one of the units, until the supervisor showed up and set everybody straight that the videographer wasn't breaking any laws, let loose, uncuffed, and then ignored by the same supervisor when he wanted the P.O. manager charged with the assault that he had on videotape and was showing to him on-the-spot, and told to go to the station where all the other law-breaking thugs were going to fill out their incident reports to swear out a complaint against the manager who was still standing just feet away when all this was going on! For every so-called "good one" out of the 100/1 ratio you mentioned, the ratio is completely reversed when one takes into consideration that the "good ones" almost never stop or report the bad ones even though they're witnesses to the many crimes and violations of civil rights that they commit daily. Government is force, and that's all. With civil asset forfeiture being as rampant as it is, many, if not most, cop-shops are little more than hangouts for road-pirates, more akin to an outlaw biker clubhouse than a bastion of protectors and defenders of liberty and freedom.

100/1 ratio of good/bad cops, postal workers, federal building office workers or the local county-run dog pound is a freakin' myth. You people use "law" to punish people and extort whatever wealth you can extract from "civilians" under threat of force for "crimes" that this country's Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves over.

In short, I believe your claimed 100/1 ratio of good-to-bad cops is complete and total bunk.

Blues

Sure he may belong to the fraternal order of civil rights abusers, but at least he can spell well, and that's what's really important.

 

[Blueshell]

I joined this forum specifically to respond to this thread and this is my first post.

As for Blueshell I am done responding to his drivel.

So I pissed you off enough to first make an account, and then give up, all in just a couple days.

You're easy to antagonize. I recommend a little OCD so you can keep focus

 

[Ringo]

So a side-argument about whether or not cops are civilians equals some kind of pervasive anti-cop attitude expressed in this thread? The only posts that could conceivably be construed as "anti-cop" that I've seen are the two of mine that I addressed to you in direct reply to things you said. The only other discussion specifically about cops is the civilian vs. other-than-civilian tangent that you have actually argued both sides of, so unless you're confining the above remark only to my two posts in reply to two of your posts, you've been "anti-cop" in at least one post in this thread too.

Blueshell isn't anti-cop, he's anti-logic, anti-intellectual-honesty, and anti-truth. I am fully pro-logic, pro-intellectual-honesty and pro-truth, and as such, after application of those positive powers of discernment, I am unmovable in my conclusion that government is corrupt beyond any semblance of repair from top to bottom, and that includes the enforcers of the myriad unconstitutional diktats of government that we lowly "civilians" have to live under in direct contravention of the oaths that every single government official and sworn enforcer takes before assuming their duties. So don't feel singled out just because you were a cop and I'm critical of cops. If one of my Congress-critters came on here talking about how protective and defensive they are of our rights, I'd post up irrefutable contradictions to such an absurd assertion. If the local Post Office or other federal agency-employee were on here touting their status as members of one of the "good" arms of government, I'd post a video from just the other day of a friend of mine videotaping a Post Office from the public sidewalk and first being threatened by the manager, then having (one of) his camera knocked out his hand and smashed on the concrete, then when the cops that he called to report the assault came, being threatened with arrest, detained for 20 minutes, handcuffed and placed in the back seat of one of the units, until the supervisor showed up and set everybody straight that the videographer wasn't breaking any laws, let loose, uncuffed, and then ignored by the same supervisor when he wanted the P.O. manager charged with the assault that he had on videotape and was showing to him on-the-spot, and told to go to the station where all the other law-breaking thugs were going to fill out their incident reports to swear out a complaint against the manager who was still standing just feet away when all this was going on! For every so-called "good one" out of the 100/1 ratio you mentioned, the ratio is completely reversed when one takes into consideration that the "good ones" almost never stop or report the bad ones even though they're witnesses to the many crimes and violations of civil rights that they commit daily. Government is force, and that's all. With civil asset forfeiture being as rampant as it is, many, if not most, cop-shops are little more than hangouts for road-pirates, more akin to an outlaw biker clubhouse than a bastion of protectors and defenders of liberty and freedom.

100/1 ratio of good/bad cops, postal workers, federal building office workers or the local county-run dog pound is a freakin' myth. You people use "law" to punish people and extort whatever wealth you can extract from "civilians" under threat of force for "crimes" that this country's Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves over.

In short, I believe your claimed 100/1 ratio of good-to-bad cops is complete and total bunk.

Blues

+1 My father and uncle were LEO's. Couldn't agree more.

 

[Blueshell]

I'll just leave this here....

[video]http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/12/public-firing-squad-video/[/video]

 

[mikestone967]

 

[Robgmn]

Then the best thing would be for people stop violating the law, and stop that revenue stream, now wouldn't it?
Don't complain that the concrete is in the wrong when you jump out a window and break your leg on impact.

 

[Blueshell]

...I am a retired police officer and have carried concealed (on & off duty and as a civilian) for 40 years, I carry concealed now by choice and while in LE I was required to carry concealed when not in uniform. I would like to make a couple points:...

I bet you thought you we're doing yourself a favor with this post lol

 

[Reba]

Neither one looks like the police cars in my area. Our's are mostly white sedans or suv's with department logos and colored striping. Although we also have this:

Link Removed

 

[BluesStringer]

Looking forward to your posts about Rolling Thunder. (After you get a well-deserved rest. )

Rolling Thunder thread.

 

[BluesStringer]

Neither one looks like the police cars in my area. Our's are mostly white sedans or suv's with department logos and colored striping. Although we also have this:

Link Removed

So is the lady-cop who drives that a part-time cop, or a part-time Mary Kay distributor? Oh shoot, I forgot, Charleston is where all that nonsense about gender-neutral bathrooms started, right? That might be a guy's car who only dresses as a lady-cop then. LOL

Blues

 

[Reba]

. . .



I doubt that spelling errors are making anyone mad, but response, filled with misspellings, do tend to make some not take a poster as seriously as a well composed, error free response would.
BlueShell would do himself a service by cleaning up his responses.

Blaming the device or a spell check program does fly either.
I usually try not to rely on spellcheck, but instead make every effort to spell correctly in the first place. Either way, a few seconds of proof reading goes a long way.
Yes, I do miss things sometimes, but I don't usually let a document get out with multiple mistakes.

Do yourself a favor BlueShell, and clean up your typing. People might just take your posts more seriously.

A little proofreading would go a long way. Spellcheckers are handy but not infallible, especially since they can't make the right word choices for posters. Spellcheck doesn't know if your word choice is meant to be your or you're, its or it's, desert or dessert. A few people need to make sure they're using the spellchecker for American English so they don't get "defence/offence" instead of "defense/offense."

 

[Reba]

. . .

100/1 ratio of good/bad cops, postal workers, federal building office workers or the local county-run dog pound is a freakin' myth. You people use "law" to punish people and extort whatever wealth you can extract from "civilians" under threat of force for "crimes" that this country's Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves over.

In short, I believe your claimed 100/1 ratio of good-to-bad cops is complete and total bunk.

Blues

I'm sorry that your life experiences with the police and government employees have been so bad. However, that doesn't mean all police and government employees are bad or that the ratio of bad-to-good is high. Your experience is not everyone's experience. Unfortunately, bad experiences get more coverage than boring daily doing the job they're supposed to do.

As bad as you believe law enforcement agents are, how civil and safe would our society be without any police or sheriff departments?